And if technicalities are the deciding point, they do appear to be not merely holding the flag in place (displaying) but moving (carrying) it at 4:00 in this video

I haven't done an exhaustive video search but I seem to recall flags that did not cover the entire field actually being moved as part of the dramatic choreography.

You're being misguidedly pedantic, and I don't care anyway--I doubt many do. They're not violating the flag code and it's not by threading a needle.

And I'm on Your Team regarding the bigger issue here. Taking a knee is showing respect while protesting (even if they disagree with you/me/us/them), but I'd accept and defend bearing an arse as a disrespectful form of protest just as well (although that would be illegal and the arse bearer should expect to pay the price for having one's arse out in public). Protesters' rights are protected under the same legislated ideals the flag is supposed to represent and thus that alleged lovers of the flag should revere, but clearly very little of the anxiety allegedly about disrespecting the flag has nothing to do with what the flag is about, but rather whatever personal baggage the anti-protester has chosen to haul around and impose upon others. Protesters are under no obligation to be respectful to begin with. They're protesting. The Constitution doesn't require respectful protest in order that it be protected speech.

Those who really cherish the ideals the flag stands for (ideally stands for anyway--certainly not under the current cartoon administration which makes the flag represent an infantile, narcissistic mob boss mentality) will support those who demonstrate those ideals, like protesters. That's why Radar type anti-protesters may take offense based upon the respect issue while also supporting the right to protest, and DD type anti-protesters may give the same nuance lip service (or not) but are actually unwittingly completely against the actual ideals the flag stands for--they're too taken with the fancy piece of cloth to appreciate its actual substance. Their arguments are generally just noises they make to hurl malignance at the enemy--they often quite obviously don't understand their own words or the ideals they name when making those spiteful noises--the words and phrases just sound satisfying to them when fired at the enemy.

Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.

- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves. - Richard Feynman- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool. - Confucius

Putting aside the niceties of the Flag Code, the thing that's abundantly clear is that the people who claim to object to the protests on the basis of respect for the flag are largely full of ****.

I'm not going to generalize from the one blockhead sitting on the flag to all the people who complain about the protests. But he was degrading the flag in a crowded area and no one seemed even a little disturbed by it. So I call BS.

This one image makes clear that people are objecting to the protests because they don't like the message--the degradation of the flag is plainly irrelevant.

Interesting to wonder if bystanders would have reacted differently if it were a black person with a Black Lives Matter t-shirt sitting on the flag instead of a white guy with a "I Stand for the Anthem" T-shirt. You can accuse me of playing the race card, but this all about race.

Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain

Yes ... to a pedant who is ignoring that codes are legalistic in nature and tend to define terms very specifically, and the fact that using "carry" in that sense for this purpose clearly makes no sense at all. I don't think you can even make a flag without "carrying" it horizontally under this dogmatic context.

But yeah, if we just casually assume "carry" means to hold, case closed. It's just obvious that's all about a personal agenda and doesn't actually serve any other function.

Those with a bit more sober nature or just intellectual self-discipline may not choose to be so hasty, and certainly not to invest so heavily in such obviously ideological minutiae, however.

Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.

- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves. - Richard Feynman- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool. - Confucius

Yes ... to a pedant who is ignoring that codes are very legalistic in nature and tend to define terms very specifically, and the fact that using "carry" in that sense for this purpose clearly makes no sense at all. I don't think you can even make a flag without "carrying" it horizontally under this dogmatically pedantic context.

But yeah, if we just casually assume "carry" means to hold, case closed. It's just obvious that's all about a personal agenda.

Those with a bit more sober nature or just intellectual self-discipline may not choose to be so hasty, and certainly not to invest so heavily in such obviously ideological minutiae, however.

--

And it turns out that even pedants lacking a bit more sober nature in any given case can still be right even if they're being hasty and/or dogmatic about it ... heh:

"The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free."

Although I'm still skeptical, because it looks like the same pedantic reading may be the entire justification for this position, and it's pretty hard to imagine the military not only sanctioning but officially participating in frequent ceremonial displays that violate the flag code--once or a few times before the error is recognized? ... sure. Repeatedly and frequently over many years? ... I doubt it. But I'd have to say the available info certainly favors Robcat's take, and legalese certainly can't always be accused of making sense.

Also ... don't let The Donald find out about this (we already know he hasn't the first clue about it--or didn't when he managed to grab the office)!

Quote

10. Modification of rules and customs by President

Any rule or custom pertaining to the display of the flag of the United States of America, set forth herein, may be altered, modified, or repealed, or additional rules with respect thereto may be prescribed, by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, whenever he deems it to be appropriate or desirable; and any such alteration or additional rule shall be set forth in a proclamation.

Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.

- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves. - Richard Feynman- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool. - Confucius

These guys are definitely carrying... exactly the thing the flag code says your not supposed to do:

"A group of Veterans and their family members carry a giant flag down the Main Street of Ferndale, California during the 2015 annual Memorial Day Parade. The parade has happened annually since the late 1880s."

"The city of Marietta's Fourth in the Park celebration begins Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 10 a.m.... Entries include marching units from the city of Marietta, civic organizations, beauty queens, scouts and local businesses.

"Members of the Camp Pendleton Young Marines round the corner in onto Forest Avenue carrying old glory during the 43rd Annual Laguna Beach Patriot's Day Parade in 2009."

"Crew of USS Cole carrying huge American flag in 4th of July parade Benjamin Franklin Parkway"

BvB, I think the point that Rob is making is that this mania for 'flag-correctness' is entirely message-based and situational. I think he's right on this one.

If something is perceived as being patriotic (or mostly white), the insistence on the flag code goes out the window. The guy sitting on the flag didn't draw objections because he's white and self-identifies as patriotic. If a similar guy had taken a knee during the anthem to memorialize Pat Tillman (before the current protests) you wouldn't have heard a peep.

I've seen American flag mudflaps on a truck! Do you think the people who object to the kneel-takers would bother to call that guy's boss and object to a disgusting display of the flag? Of course not, because he's perceived to be on their side. That's why they don't care about the guy sitting on the flag. If it were a black guy with a BLM shirt, the flag code would suddenly be important again.

I owned a restaurant that served ribs on the menu, so we put out wet wipes. One day I came in and the new wet wipes had an American flag on the wrapper. I sent them back when I saw them, but no one who got them in the meantime complained about the degrading of our flag in that manner. Not one person.

The objection to the anthem-kneelers is purely regarding the message. As is amply demonstrated by all these examples, no one gives a **** about the flag code except as an excuse to oppose black protest.

Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain

Matters of legalese like flag codes are sketchy bases for holding anything but a legal position on something though, because the law means what the courts say it means, bottom line, and that can change, and it doesn't always make sense.

Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.

- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves. - Richard Feynman- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool. - Confucius

If someone has a court ruling that defines "carry" or "horizontal" as something other than their normal, conventional meanings that would be illuminating but I think "carry" and "horizontal" mean what they mean. It doesn't give exemptions for good intentions.

The flag code defines respectful treatment of the flag, those people aren't following it and yet... they're getting a free pass on it.

A clear case of how society applies rules to some and not to others.

I bet if some black action group was in a Memorial Day Parade doing the same thing, that "horizontal" rule would get rediscovered real quick.

If someone has a court ruling that defines "carry" or "horizontal" as something other than their normal, conventional meanings that would be illuminating but I think "carry" and "horizontal" mean what they mean. It doesn't give exemptions for good intentions.

That's just failing to remember how legalese so often works.

I think you're fairly pro-gun control, so consider the 2nd Amendment as defined by the courts and maybe you'll remember how important definitions of terms and layered nuance is to law. It has to be that way to a large extent--people will choose to define things in the way that serves them best, and many have no sense of reason or propriety about it. So people and their agendas are involved, and that inherently screws things all up. That's just life amongst the humans.

The moment you decide it's just common sense, you're practically begging the law to screw you. Just as with a con artist, as soon as you feel like you're hard to fool, the con artist begins to really like you.

You may well be right about your take on this code, but you also seem invested in being naive about the nature of legalese in this case. Legal code means what the highest court that's ruled on that code says it means. Common sense and the plain, simple meanings of terms often have nothing to do with it. Do not count on legal precedents to back you up on an ethical or moral position. Legal/lawful absolutely does not equal ethical or moral. People just like to point to established legal code that supports their position as if that validates it as the right/ethical/moral position when it happens to work out for them. We're all inclined to do that sort of thing. We need to learn to resist that inclination. It often turns out the law supports unethical/immoral/bad behaviors.

You want to delve into semantics of legalese in a code that is not legally binding?

And want to compare transporting a flag to a flag that is being brought out to be a centerpiece during the anthem, and the object to which people should face? Because a flag during transport and a flag used in the anthem are anything alike per what is going on at the time?

The semantics are just plain stupid.

In the case of the NFL, the flag is carried out of to the field as part of the anthem. It is the flag that is honored. And as the symbol of our country, it has the additional symbolism that it should fly freely... as in our "free" country and the "freedoms" it represents and protects.

It ain't rocket science.

Nor does holding it fast while saluting and singing to it as part of honoring the country actually respect the symbolism inherent.

Ain't legal, just disrespectful. Also is very much picking and choosing.

Keeping in mind the flag code is a guideline and not law (except for flying it with the field of stars down, which is a signal of distress, and has been treated in courts in the past as akin to a false 911 call). I think in the case of the flag for me it boils down to intent. If you treat the flag with honor and respect you are not deliberately disrespecting it or our nation (although you may be violating the guidelines for proper display and handling of the flag). If you've ever been to a military funeral the flag is held up over the casket and walked away from the casket and folded, if you wanted to get all legalistic about the flag code it would have been violated when they carried the flag away from the casket. Back to the real issue I've actually always been on the fence regarding the take a knee protest of the NFL, I personally have always supported the cause, and I didn't particularly care for them doing the protest during the national anthem. Yes I'm aware of all of the ways people disregard the flag code on a daily basis, and most of it is done out of ignorance of the flag code and apathy and not a desire to disrespect the country. Some people see the take a knee as a deliberate act of disrespect for the flag, they don't get the nuance of they aren't disrespecting the flag but are just trying to get their message across, even though they may agree with the message they can still find fault with the method of delivery. After giving it some consideration, and quite a bit from reading people's views on here I've come to the conclusion that the intent of those participating in the take a knee protest isn't about disrespecting the flag or the country, but a way to get their message out that some people in this country are still being treated differently because of their race by the police and others. Although I've come to understand that the take a knee protest isn't about disrespect, there are many others out there (including many veterans) who don't see it that way. The flag is a powerful symbol of our country, and you have to expect that some people aren't going to get the nuance of the protest not being about the flag. Just because someone doesn't get the nuance of the protest, and feels strongly about the flag being disrespected doesn't necessarily make them bad people, or racist, etc. Yes the take a knee protest seems to be effective, in that it is getting people talking about the protest. You can say that these people that don't get it are closed minded, and to some extent I agree that they have missed the message because of the means of delivery and that can be defined as closed minded. I can also say from what I've observed on this thread that there are many on the side of the protest who are just as closed minded when it comes to understanding the views of those who find the form of the protest offensive.